Yep, that's come up before. Personally, I don't like the idea.
Think about how complicated that could become with nested, nested
defs. I'd prefer better support for including other definitions as a
tile attribute. Maybe that support is there already and i just
haven't tried it.
Greg
On Jun 8, 2006, at 11:06 AM, Antonio Petrelli wrote:
Greg Reddin ha scritto:
As long as your layout is completely defined in one JSP page this
will all work. It breaks down if your layout has separate pages
for header, footer, etc. See below:
<definition name="tileA" path="/layout.jsp">
<put name="header" value="/header1.jsp"/>
<put name="headerGraphic" value="image1.gif"/>
<put name="someOtherThing" value="..."/>
</definitioin>
<definition name="tileB" extends="tileA">
<put name="header" value="header2.jsp"/>
<put name="headerGraphic" value="image2.gif"/>
</definition>
Above you want to define your header differently for two layouts
and you want to pass different images in. This won't work because
the headerGraphic attribute will not be passed along to the header
page unless you do it manually from the page where it is inserted.
Uh, this makes me think about a possibility to support something
like "inline definitions" such as:
<definition name="tileB" extends="tileA">
<put name="header">
<definition path="/header2.jsp">
<put name="headerGraphic" value="image2.gif" />
</definition>
</put>
<put name="headerGraphic" value="image2.gif"/>
</definition>
Do you think it could be a good solution?
Ciao
Antonio
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
